Steve LeBlanc writes for the Associated Press today about how Massachusetts uses just a tiny fraction of cigarette taxes for anti-smoking programs. By contrast, he says most of a recent gas tax hike goes for its intended purpose:
Drivers paid an extra $257 million to fill up their tanks as a result of the 3-cent-per-gallon increase … virtually all of the gas tax money went to highway construction and maintenance
Polls show voters don’t want to pay more for road construction, but Democrats are constantly told by Very Serious People that they must campaign for gas tax hikes because it’s The Right Thing to Do.
Sure, it’s nice to put a more accurate price on gasoline, which gets so many free rides, from polluting our air to getting massive taxpyaer subsidies.
But if the money is just going to pay for more highways, incentivizing more sprawl and more gasoline consumption, it’s unclear if raising the gas tax is even a clear net good, never mind worth progressives spending precious political capital on what’s a relatively unpopular cause.
I’d rather fight for a millionaire’s tax and a carbon tax, wouldn’t you?
Cross-posted from The Green Miles
It’s a fair question.
But we can choose. Do we want the incremental revenue to go toward mo’better highways or mo’better sidewalks? Or HOV lanes? Or mass transit infrastructure? Or bike facilities? Or safer pedestrian crossings?
We know that a higher gas tax will result in less gasoline consumption. We also know that better infrastructure results in more consumption. Let’s choose what kind of consumption we want.
P.S. Bonus for me for knowing that the photo is taken looking east on the St. Mary’s Street Bridge on the Boston/Brookline line, directly over the Mass Pike westbound lanes.
We need to keep our roads in good repair AND make sure that all modes are accommodated, but I still prefer more general taxation to fund it rather than a higher gas tax.
If you want less focus on highways, then fund more environmentally friendly rail and mass transit instead. The MBTA desperately needs the investment, and it it has to come from somewhere.
Do you have a more efficient method for reducing carbon emissions from transportation?
Driving only went down slightly when gas prices hit $4/gallon. Gas prices are now below $2.50/gallon. The MA gas tax is currently below 27 cents/gallon. Unless we’re raising the gas tax by a factor of 10, it’s not going to impact carbon emissions one iota.
I’m hep to thegreenmiles point though.
Raising the price at the pump by a percent or three will have a negligible impact on consumption. Using that revenue to reduce congestion for drivers by building more auto lanes will result in more driving. End result: increased consumption of gasoline, and hence, GHG emissions.
That’s why I’d like to see a gas tax increase coupled with the raised revenue invested in transit, bike, and ped infrastructure. Hell, invest some of it on high speed Internet to allow more telecommuting. Invest some of it in Smart Growth training courses for municipal employees and municipal elected officials to help them tweak their zoning. Invest some of it in increased enforcement of traffic and parking regulations to help motorists avoid taking actions that make cyclists and peds and transit users less safe.
Personally, I’d also like to see an inside-128 gas tax. It couldn’t be too much more than the outside-128 tax, maybe a nickle. That additional money would go straight to mass transit inside 128 — mostly the T, but strictly speaking it could go to Winthrop’s (not on the T!) local bus system, to a municipal’s elder bus program, whatevs. Gas tax raised ~$660M in FY2014, so figure 25% inside 128 (a guess, admittedly). That’s about $165M in added revenue to invest in mass transit. It won’t solve much, but it will help, and it will be a clear signal that the Boston metro area is willing to spend more to invest in its own transportation. The rest of the state will appreciate it… at least until we make it clear that they should foot more of their own bills for state roads and bridges in their neck of the woods (shrugs).
The Obama administration has been killin’ it behind the scenes, raising fuel efficiency standards across a wide range of vehicle types: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy
Notice how we’ve been stuck since about April 2014? Look at when gas prices cratered:
Mr. Obama’s ratcheting up of the CAFE standards are great, as is the DOE and DOT investment in R&D for improving fuel economy. Ultimately though, it is high fuel prices that reduce consumption. And, FYI, America hasn’t reduced consumption. We’ve been “stuck” at the same total consumption since 2003, about the time the Prius was introduced. Avoiding climate change absolutely requires that we cut substantially into our gasoline consumption.
I cropped off my last chart:
It works in preview, but not live. It can be found at
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=c120000001&f=a
I believe we are well behind our first-world counterparts in this regard.
I agree that we should demand greater fuel efficiency, and we certainly are well behind our first-world counterparts in this regard. There is another key aspect of the energy policy of those first-world counterparts that we must emulate — a SIGNIFICANT gasoline tax.
I call your attention to the figure below. Specifically, the USA (near the bottom) is at about $0.50/gallon, while Germany, Britain and France are each about $3.00/gallon.
The explicit intent of this is to:
1. Ensure that alternative energy sources can be competitively priced
2. Fund public transportation
3. Provide a market incentive to reduce gasoline consumption
4. Provide a market incentive to use public transportation.
I also note that these countries have SIGNIFICANTLY better public rail transportation than the US.
…I can only consider such a significant increase AFTER we catch up on public transit. I know the argument is the way to fund public transit is with the gas tax, but while it is still a necessity for many of us find a different revenue source in the meantime.
The money simply isn’t there. It’s not going to be there.
Massachusetts gas tax revenue is only 0.15 percent of state GDP.
For every $100 we earn, we pay fifteen cents in gas tax. To be sure, some pay almost none, so some pay 25 or 30 cents per $100. But seriously — of all the taxes and other expenses, raising the gas tax from $0.24 to $0.30 (the national consumption-weighted average) would generate an additional ~$160M/yr. We can buy an awful lot of bus service for that kind of coin.
By the way — the fuel tax of our neighbors:
New York $0.43
Connecticut $0.38
Rhode Island $0.34
Vermont $0.30
New Hampshire $0.24.
I can’t help but wonder if Massachusetts taxation values really align with New Hampshire and not every other one of our neighbors.
It does.
Sorry if it sounds selfish, but I’m just in a very penny-pinching circumstance right now (and forever it seems):(
You cited our “first-world counterparts”. To me, that means Germany, Britain, France, etc.
I’d like to see the TOTAL gas tax (federal and state) be about $3.00/gallon.
Here’s what I think that does:
– It provides a price floor that encourages development of alternative-fuel vehicles
– It forces consumers (like you and me) to DEMAND effective transportation alternatives, such as convenient, affordable and safe public transportation and bicycles.
– It provides much-needed revenue for operating public transit
– It encourages a lifestyle — and ultimately a culture — where people live near their work and work near their homes.
The final point, more than almost any other, is in my view one of the most devastating consequences of the automobile on US society. A yuuuge contributor to our issues with the divorce rate, with crime, and with quality of life in exurbia and suburbia is the fact that fathers, mothers, and children have NO contact with each other most of the day.
We end up talking about “quality time” — as if it can be condensed into a 2-3 hour window at the beginning or end of a day.
There is a much larger picture here. The premise of working even 30 miles from home — never mind 60-100 — is unsustainable.
I’ve never been a fan of manipulating demand and unfortunately sometimes we can’t find jobs as close to home as we like. Substitute teaching is fortunately very close, but my summer job involves a commute with no alternative to car available for getting back and forth.
So I guess you don’t subscribe to the “she works days; I work nights” prescription for a happy marriage:)
I voted against it because once a tax is in place I need to know how you plan to make up the difference. I also did not have the problem many did with indexing though I do wish we would make it a % like the sales tax on everything else. It seems, though, that politically it would be wise to come up with another solution. Personally, I always prefer general rather than targeted revenue sources.
Smart, but I’m still for both. Just change where the gas tax revenues are directed prospectively.